I bumped into this while surfing and I thought it would be nice to post about it here. It is about webmasters building sites that are optimized for some browsers only, and it is a a campaign against that. I ve found one thread on the forum related to this issue. Click the image above to read more about the campaign.
the problem with this is as follows: the reason we have web standards and conform universally to them is so that the sites show up equally in every browser - that's the goal. The problem becomes when a popular browser fails to implement industry standards. Now, do you build it to the world's standards, or do you cater to the lowest common denominator (in which case you are totally ignoring the purpose of having the standards in the first place). Go ahead, look through these boards, the browser that causes the most issues and needs the most hand-holding is Microsoft Internet Explorer, and hey, it only runs on one platform - windows. How is that, realistically, the software that should define how Mac-based designers code sites to be viewed by Mac users, or how Linux users should design sites for Unix users. What we do have available to us today is Firefox, free, open-source, platform-independent and also standards compliant. if I could aim for conforming to one browser for certainty of quality, wouldn't it be the only browser that literally everybody could use? I understand this campaign against people excluding others and optimizing their content to work better in one browser, but what they're suggesting is the same thing - to ignore other browsers and only use IE-safe limitations on your design. A true AnyBrowser campaign would be relentless in pressuring Microsoft to support standards and comply with the open-standards as laid out by the W3C, not pressuring web designers to cover for Microsoft's laziness/incompetence.
I really don't want to respond to that thread since it's so old but I am aware of some sites that require you to use Firefox because they use XUL. XUL is open source but I'm pretty sure straight, pure XUL only works on FF and would only give a blank page to others. There are also some sites that use all the current modern standards which, of course, wouldn't work in IE since it isn't a modern browser. For example, here are two sites that run XHTML which never works in IE, as you know: Jacques Distler Robert Broersma
What you said is totally right. One of my page ( Web Diagnostic For Webmaster ) is not works well on Internet Explorer while it tested and works well on all browsers such as: Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome, Netscape, AOL, Konqueror, Flock, Epiphany, K-Meleon, Avant. On IE, when you click button to proceed to get a result, it frequently said "unknown runtime error". Make me frustration to work for IE.
Yup, browser compatibility is important but often neglected by Micro$oft. Do you know that menu in msdn site is not work in FF.
web Designers have started not to apply IE specific hacks and tricks esp. for IE 6. We should support this move. We hope that the result will be a new modern, better standard compliant browser by Microsoft. enjoy .
To the first reply, I think you've got this horribly wrong. Nobody is endorsing any browsers (especially not IE !). This campaign is an appeal to all of the webmasters. The idea is to make web designers try to adjust their site(s) to as many browsers as possible and not to build particularly for one. The thread I mentioned above, accidentally FF was the accused one in it. From your stand point I can see that you haven't even visited (and read) http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign since you immediately started flaming IE...